What's Important In 2006?

There is no question in my mind that officials will use the very next incident to clamp down further on rights in America.

One of the greatest fallacies in how we manage our nation is in believing the officials have our best interests at heart. This is like asking a salesman if you need his product. Officials, and salespeople, are not accountable to us, but to their bosses or to their own conscience, which hasn’t worked especially well as a safeguard, has it? Their objectives do not resonate with our objectives.

That was lost a long time ago. To ambition, to indifference and to infighting.

The power of the state is measured by the power that men surrender to it. — Felix Morley

Officials are too busy with other matters to think of our individual rights. And too many Americans are unimpressed with the seriousness of current affairs. Being in America means we have so many rights that we can afford to lose a few. We won’t miss a few rights, would we, things here are so good.

Some people smell in the air another incident coming. Others ask, "What else is new?" My fear is that – once again – officials will punish Americans who didn’t do the shooting, or the hijacking, or the whatever, justified by the enormity of the incident and the purchase of safety for the bargain basement pricing of giving up just a few of our liberties merely for the duration.

And another incident will come.

And that duration is still with us from the last time, isn't it?

The question has been, "Have we had an incident since 9/11? See? It’s working."

This is where two things happen: the enemy gets its way and so does the ambitious official: greater destruction of our rights. And the failure of some to see the gravity of losing some rights doesn’t help.

Americans have a choice of surrendering more sovereignty for the sake of safety, or standing their ground and seeing that standing our ground works better.

We have security without purchasing it with a few civil rights. In fact, it was purchased for us a few hundred years ago, already. No need to pay for it twice.

We’ve learned by now that surrendering a few civil rights doesn’t make for added safety. It just draws us closer to the goals of the enemy, slowly, subtly, but effectively.

I’m for reversing it all, and let’s give that a chance, shall we?

I doubt whether we’ll stop the phone taps, but I sure would like to see more important outward signs confirming official cooperation. Government officials need to cooperate with us, we don’t need to cooperate with them. We’re sovereign, remember? They’re servants, and the more they forget that, the more they play into the hands of the enemy. They really ought to know better.

The American people are more than capable of taking care of a lot of what officials seem to be a allocating assets against, such as boxcutters. Someone uses a boxcutter to hijack a commercial jet and we all have to turn in our nail clippers at the airport. And then we can carry them again???

How does curbing honest Americans reach the criminal?

Well, it won’t.

Do you really believe that’s going to stop other terrorist acts? Think Todd Beamer.

Who wants to live free in this country?

Do you believe that we outnumber those who don’t want us to live free?

Do you believe that we will act when the time comes to protect our sovereignty?

Do you believe we should be free to?

I have news for you: we are free to. And it’s an obstacle for some. Think ambition, indifference and infighting.

My suggestion is not to over-examine and restrict the rights of those who are sovereign in this country -- we're the ones you're doing it all for, remember? -- for it plays into the hands of the enemy; take away some of our rights and you serve the enemy, for our freedoms are one of our most powerful assets. Our Bill of Rights is more than sufficient.

A lot of this criticism going around by a lot of writers, as it should be.

No, my suggestion is not to disarm Americans further – by taking away rights as well as tools – but to fortify our strongest assets, our rights and our tools.

Reverse it. There is no need to make citizens sacrifice liberties to discover and apprehend the bad guys. It only states that you can't tell, and that's not good enough.

Specifically, we need to carry weapons wherever we go, including civil aircraft and their airports. Boxcutters, Hell - we need to carry guns. If you believe in Air Marshals, you believe in sovereign citizens carrying, too, because the officer is merely an extension of our authority.

We need to be free to carry weapons unfettered, because the criminals are already carrying them unfettered and we are made defenseless by silly officials who can’t comprehend how our resistance to their aggression is legitimate - and effective - and who hide the ball when it comes to our already having that authority and effectiveness.

For an official position that advocates security, it sure seems to be on the side of the criminals more than being on our side. (These are the jerks who don’t like violence, but who employ armed bodyguards for themselves.)

Note that most if not all shootings in eateries, churches and schools are calendared to go down when there is no one there armed, and certainly when police would arrive far too late. (The same is true on aircraft where no Air Marshal is assigned. The plane is defenseless. Or is it?)

"Today, we need to go murder some churchgoers, Frank," says Murderer A.

"Well, just make sure on your daily planner that you schedule it when nobody’s going to shoot back. You remember what happened to that guy at that law school.." says Murderer D. "Coupla students held him at gunpoint before he could get a second person."

Carrying weapons is the most straightforward solution to the problem of spontaneous violent crime. Or even planned violent crime for that matter.

Understand that individuals already have that authority to protect their person and even their community. The authority of law enforcement is not exclusive. Did you somehow think that it was?

Two-thirds of the states in the U.S. are right to carry states in recognition of this individual legal authority.

Why do you suppose it is frustrated where it is needed most - California, New York, Washington, D.C. - including churches, schools and aircraft?

Why?

As we move into 2006, we need to appreciate a few likely scenarios. If the Patriot Act is allowed to continue, it will be Hell on Earth if Liberals ever get ahold of it. Liberals have been the biggest abusers of their authority for decades. The Republicans aren’t doing so well right about now themselves. The Patriot Act must sunset upon the next Presidential election if it is renewed at all in 2006.

The Act says, more or less, "Let us handle it." But in so doing, it moves us further and further away from our own independence. Talk about exclusion . .

I’d instruct the officials to watch out for transfer of technical secrets, plottings and so forth, but please don’t tie my hands when it comes to face-to-face violence we may encounter. It serves the enemy for the citizens to be unarmed. The Capital the enemy obtains is not in cash, but in sway of the nation's issues. Allowing another and another violent crime in America by tying the hands of the citizen is to make another such charitable donation to the collection kettle of the enemy.

I don't care what the official reason is: nothing officials can say trumps individual sovereignty.


In 2006, there is the possibility that hi-tech intrusions in individual surveillance will crescendo, with social or personal penalties for protest or objection. The RFID chip and National ID Card will play a big part in transferring our sovereignty away from our homes. This is not a reaction to crime, it is a goal.

In 2006, the Liberals will announce their Party Mission. Can’t wait for that. Seems like they’ve already announced it, though.

[The Liberals have learned nothing: For instance, in MichNews.com, Alan Gottlieb and Joe Waldron write a piece, Chameleon Democrats Can't Truly Change if They Don't Know Why. Here's an important observation: ...the Democratic Party, ". . long identified with gun control, is rethinking its approach to the gun debate, seeking to improve the chances of its candidates in Western states where hunters have been wary of casting votes for a party with a national reputation of being against guns." Gottlieb and Waldron emphasize that Liberals focus on better selling themselves to voters than changing their philosophy to serve the people better. Let me add that Liberals will never change, because what drives them is a major disagreement with American values to begin with.]

And in 2006 Americans will have another chance to re-evaluate how much authority we will give officials. The significance of 2006 is that these chances are becoming fewer and less powerful every year.

I recommend that we cut back enormously on authority we grant any officials, irrespective of Party. I recommend that we make personal self-defense a very big issue for any candidates in recognition that, as I’ve said, the individual is the first line of defense against violent crime. The electorate is the first line of defense against the indifference and interference with our sovereignty, too.

2006 may seem to be an off-year for political change, but it should be used as a staging period for constituent identification of vital issues as early as possible. Too much is going on unnoticed inbetween election years in commerce, legislation, security and candidacies to be addressed later; it needs to be seen now. It's a full-time job.

Our reaction time has been disappointing when it comes to electorate involvement; it’s time to be pro-active and understand, like the Founding Fathers, not so much what we want, but what we definitely don’t want.

Because the power of the state is measured by the power that we surrender to it.

____________________________________________

John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth – The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry, available worldwide.